Import Substitution in Russia: Trends, Barriers, and Growth Points

According to a study by the B1 Group of Companies, the import substitution index rose by one third over four years — from 46 to 61 points. This indicator reflects the share of foreign goods and services used by enterprises and is calculated on the basis of a company survey: a value of 100 points would mean that for all respondents the import share does not exceed 25 %, while 0 points — that 100 % of those surveyed use 75–100 % imported goods and services.

The difference in dynamics between Russian and foreign companies is especially telling. For domestic enterprises, the index increased by 55 % — from 43 to 67 points, whereas for foreign organizations the increase was only 25 % (from 47 to 59 points). Experts explain this by noting that international companies often retain access to global supply chains through parent structures, and also do not always fall under sanctions restrictions to the same extent as local players.

Heterogeneity is also evident across industries. The highest substitution rates were recorded in the services segment — in particular, financial and professional services: here, the index increase reached 57 %. In the manufacturing sector, the rates are lower — on average 41 %. This is due to the fact that replacing equipment requires significant capital expenditures, long delivery times, and adaptation of technological processes.

Analysis by categories of purchased products demonstrates a clear hierarchy in terms of substitution success. The best results have been achieved in segments where switching to alternative sources does not require a deep restructuring of production chains. Thus, among Russian companies, the import substitution index for services is 64 points, for consumables — 49 points, and for raw materials — 43 points.

At the same time, the most problematic remain purchases of production equipment (index — 25 points) and components (35 points). These categories require not merely changing a supplier, but often — developing new technical solutions, certification, and integration into existing production lines. This is why in these segments the process is slower and associated with higher costs.

As of April 2026 year, 74 % of surveyed companies faced the need to substitute imported goods or services. The main reason cited by respondents is the termination of supplies through previous channels due to sanctions (62 % of responses). At the same time, selecting multiple options is allowed, which reflects the complex nature of the problem.

The key instrument of import substitution has been the shift to products from manufacturers in friendly and neutral countries: this method was indicated by 71 % of respondents. In second place — the shift to Russian manufacturers (67 %), which indicates a gradual strengthening of domestic supply. Parallel imports remain a significant but less widespread channel: 19 % of companies use it. Own production in Russia as a substitution method was noted by only 7 % of survey participants — this underscores that creating new production capacities is not yet the main driver of the process.

According to the report “Made in Russia: From Import Substitution to Technological Leadership,” presented in December 2025 year by the autonomous non-profit organization “National Priorities,” the most pronounced localization deficit is observed in the automotive industry, machine-tool building, microelectronics, and industrial software. These industries are characterized by high technological complexity, long development cycles, and substantial investment needs.

Special attention is paid to microelectronics — one of the most complex segments. As First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov noted, the production of certain product lines in this area remains the most labor-intensive task. An important step was the creation in 2025 year of a domestic 350 nm lithography tool — this equipment makes it possible to develop one’s own production capabilities without dependence on external suppliers. The plans include reaching 130 nm design rules, and later — moving toward more advanced process nodes. However, as the official emphasizes, this path will require time and consistent implementation of technological stages.

The current dynamics of import substitution reflect not so much the complete displacement of imports as the transformation of supply chains: part of the needs is met through domestic production, and part — through new external partners. This approach helps sustain production activity, but at the same time creates new dependencies and risks related to quality, delivery times, and technological compatibility.

In addition, the heterogeneity of the process underscores the importance of differentiated government support: while in some segments it is sufficient to stimulate demand and simplify access to alternative suppliers, in others systemic development of the scientific and production base, workforce training, and long-term investments are required.

Thus, import substitution in Russia — is not a linear process, but a complex structural transformation that combines fast tactical solutions and long-term strategic projects. Current results demonstrate progress in a number of areas, but at the same time reveal critical zones where achieving technological independence will require additional efforts and resources.

Author: Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of World Economy and World Finance, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Natalia Ivanovna Chovgan.